Selective Neurocognitive Deficits Associated with Multiple Doses of Ecstasy/MDMA: A Reply to Cole
H. Fox,A. Parrott
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881103017002016
2003-06-01
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Abstract:Journal of Psychopharmacology (Fox et al., 2001), and we welcome this opportunity to reply. In their first paragraph, they state that the World Health Organization used the term Ecstasy for a wide range of compounds. The WHO report actually stated: ‘... it is only recently that the pharmacology of MDMA (‘Ecstasy’) and related drugs (MDA, MDEA, MBDB) has come under scientific scrutiny’ (WHO, 1996). In other sections of the report, the term Ecstasy was said to be ‘virtually generic’ for ring-substituted amphetamine derivatives such as MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine) and MDE (3,4 methylenedioxyethylamphetamine). The report also noted that the neurochemical profiles and subjective effects of this class of drugs were very similar. Cole et al. (2002a) then suggested that ‘Tablet testing studies in the UK have routinely demonstrated that MDMA is present in less than 50% of samples’. This statement surprised us, since our understanding was that the empirical literature showed that approximately 70–80% of Ecstasy tablets contained MDMA. The most comprehensive data on this topic has been generated by the Netherlands Drug Information Monitoring Service, which has been monitoring the chemical constituents of thousands of Ecstasy tablets for many years (Spruit, 2001). They reported that, on average, 75% of Ecstasy tablets contained MDMA, with MDE also being prevalent in some years. Their most recent survey found that ‘The percentage of MDMA pills increased more than ever before, indicating amoung other things that consumers prefer the conventional product’ (Spruit, 2001). Several other surveys have generated values of approximately 75%; these studies are briefly summarized in Parrott (2001a). Saunders also stated on the Ecstasy.org website (which regularly tests and monitors the quality of Ecstasy tablets), that ‘overall the quality of Ecstasy in Britain has improved’, referring to both ‘proportion and strength’. The article claimed that the chance of getting pure MDMA in 1995 was approximately 2 out of 3 and, of getting an MDMA-like drug, approximately 3 out of 4. It was further suggested that tolerance was a probable reason for the existence of reports that Ecstasy was not as good as it used to be. Our participants had been using Ecstasy for a mean of 4 years, increasing the likelihood that MDMA would have been consumed on most of these occasions. Three studies were cited by Cole et al. (2002a) to support their statement that: ‘MDMA is present in less than 50% of samples’. The largest study was by Ramsey et al. (2001), who ‘analysed solid dose formulations retrieved from an amnesty bin at a London dance venue, into which visitors were required to discard illicit drugs and into which security staff placed substances found during searches’. Of the 299 items from the bin, 156 were tablets, while the others including cannabis joints, powders, knives and a CS gas canister. Analysis of the tablets revealed that many comprised over-the-counter or prescription medicines (paracetamol, salicylates, diphenhydramine), some were food supplements vitamin tablets, or confectioneries ‘such as Smints’. Of the illicit drugs chemically identified, MDMA and amphetamine were predominant. The authors concluded that ‘A high proportion of the tablets contained MDMA, while the powders were predominantly amphetamine’ (Ramsey et al., 2001). However, it should be emphasized that that this was not a formal survey of Ecstasy tablets, since there was no indication of which tablets/powders were believed by their former owners to comprise ‘Ecstasy’. Thus, we are unclear as to why Cole et al. (2002a) cited this study as providing any information on the proportion of Ecstasy tablets that contain MDMA; certainly the authors did not offer any such estimate (Ramsey et al., 2001). The second study cited by Cole et al. (2002a) was by Sherlock et al. (1999), who examined the composition of 25 Ecstasy tablets handed in under amnesty from all parts of the UK to the Leeds Addiction Unit. Twelve tablets contained MDMA, four MDEA, while the other nine comprised caffeine, ephedrine, amphetamine, paracetamol or ketamine. The study has two limitations, its small size and the unclear nature of the amnesty, so that the rationale for handing in those particular tablets (often with very low dose levels) was unclear. Even so, the majority of tablets still contained a ring substituted amphetamine derivative (Sherlock et al., 1999). The third and final study cited by Cole et al. (2002a) was by Milroy et al. (1996). This was a postmortem study of seven deaths associated with ring substituted amphetamine derivatives. Five of the seven had MDMA in their blood (sometimes in conjunction with MDA, MDEA or amphetamine), while the sixth was positive for MDEA and amphetamine. The seventh individual was the only person admitted to hospital while still concious; he died later from progressive liver failure following self-admitted ecstacy use, but no blood samples were described in the report. The discussion also mentioned an unpublished survey of thirteen Ecstasy tablets, of which three contained MDMA, five MDA and seven MDEA, often with other active compounds or contaminants. However, we do not believe that such a small survey can provide a useful population estimate. In the next paragraph, Cole et al. (2002a) complained that we did not follow ‘standard practice’ in psychopharmacology and report mg/kg doses. We are not aware of any study of recreational Journal of Psychopharmacology 17(2) (2003) 242–244 ©2003 British Association for Psychopharmacology (ISSN 0269-8811) SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi 0269–8811[200306]17:2; 242–244; 033064 Letter to the Editors